It's been interesting to watch the Arizona Daily Star's evolving positions on the employer sanctions issue.
Back when Republicans wanted to build a fence, the Star thought employer sanctions were a good idea. Here's what they said on July 5th.
It's a good idea to impose sanctions against employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. It would be an even better idea if employers had an ironclad method of verifying the citizenship of a job applicant and if sanctions were one part of a bigger immigration package.
The Star called for a federal employer sanctions bill, but later in July, it opposed the state version. In fact, after calling for a federal employer sanctions bill, the Star called the state employer sanctions law "draconian." At least they conceded that the state version required business to "knowingly" hire Illegal Aliens in order to be penalized.
Under the ill-conceived employer-sanctions law, a business' license could be suspended and the workplace shut down - leaving all employees out of work - if the business knowingly hires an undocumented worker.
The paper then gets completely confused and claims that the violations need to be "knowingly and intentionally." Here's what they said on July 19th.
The state's new employer-sanctions law is at center stage in this battle. The law says the state can suspend and ultimately revoke the business license of a company that knowingly and intentionally hires workers who are in this country illegally.
Finally, after suggesting that Employer sanctions were good idea and then opposing them, then admitting that the violations needed to be knowing or intentional, the Star changes its tune yet again. Here's August 18th
Businesses are expected to verify that workers are eligible for employment with an inadequate federal system that checks names and Social Security numbers. The mistake of one employee could jeopardize an entire business.
Oh, so now mistakes can shut down a business?
First the sanctions were a good idea, then they were Draconian. They started out to be "knowingly" and then they had to be "knowingly and intentionally," and now they can be simple mistakes.
Either the Star doesn't read its own editorials, or they assume we don't.